Welcome, Twirlip. Your post is just fine. Good food for good thoughts. And, anyone who quotes Kant in his/her first post here can stick around, as far as I'm concerned anyway ... :-)
On 12 Jan., 19:03, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 12, 3:48 am, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why do so few people (otherwise intelligent for the most part) have > > such a tweaked view of science? I'm so tired of hearing it described > > as a religion (oh ya, well you worship science!), a dogma (ya but > > since science says...then you have to believe it!), a choice (just > > because you like science, doesn't mean I have to!), ETC...!!!!! > > Science is a method of understanding the world around the person in > > question. It is not an alternate to religion. > > Science isn't a religion, or an alternative to religion, but scientism > is like a religion, and is an alternative to religion. It's not hard > to see that people sometimes confuse science with scientism (whether > or not they believe in scientism), unless you deny that the word > 'scientism' has any clear meaning. Do you? > > > Science is the direct examination of evidence. It is only useful when > > contemplating something testable or checkable. > > Have you ever had a leak and systematically checked for which pipe it > > was? Welcome to science. > > Have you ever had question and looked for an answer or asked someone > > that has? welcome to science. > > Have you ever altered a recipe because something sounded good or you > > thought might work? welcome to science. > > Fair enough. > > > If you have ever prayed for your pipe to stop leaking, prayed for an > > answer, or prayed for food to make itself, you aren't a scientist and > > very likely will never have the capacity for science. > > I'm not a believer in any formal religion, yet I think I sometimes > pray. Most often, I only pray in a silly way, when I am merely > desperate for some unknown entity to step in and help me, but it's not > always so silly. Sometimes I have some belief in something or Someone > I am praying to. > > > Science does not give a damn about you or your feelings > > What, then, does one do with a self or with feelings that have gone > awry? Turn to science? To psychiatric medication, perhaps, because > the brain at least is a tangible object for scientific enquiry? Is > psychiatry scientific? > > > it is a concept and a method, not a consoler for delusion or failure. > > But delusion and failure are part of the human condition. Is there, > then, no difference between truth and falsehood, in any of the ways of > addressing our human limitations and failings? Is one religion, or > one therapeutic fad, as good, or as bad, as any another? If science > cannot address a question, then does that question have no answer, or > will any old answer do as well as another? > > > Science does not care about oneness or deities. Since these are > > generally self defeating logical concepts > > Can you logically demonstrate their alleged self-defeating quality? > > > and not concepts that appear > > in the natural world, science COULD NOT speak on them and never does. > > Whereof science cannot speak, must all remain silent? > > > Science does not care about whether or not you are confused on some > > philosophical concept. Science can however, allow you to explore and > > investigate an amazing world surrounded by a complex solar system, in > > a superbly beautiful galaxy. > > I can be lost in wonder at the structure of the ribosome, or the > Triangulum galaxy, or the set of zeros of the Riemann zeta function > (but is mathematics a science?), and at the human mind(s) that can > discover (or invent) such things, but there is much to wonder about > that does not seem to form a subject for scientific enquiry, but is at > least as important as anything in science, such as ethics. ("The > starry heavens above, the moral law within.") > > > Science can allow you to understand that simply existing is such a > > beautiful and awesome concept, that no little metaphysical idea needs > > be entertained if one wants to be amazed, confused, or challenged by > > everything that they purport to search for. > > I can't see what you are saying here. You have some sense of beauty > and awe (good, that speaks well of you), but you seem to be saying > that you owe it all to science, in much the same pious way that > religious people are often inclined modestly to attribute all good > human qualities to God. Is this not somewhat religious of you? If > not, then what exactly are you saying, in scientific terms? > > > -Personal note:- > > It will take all of your energy and attention to understand even a > > small amount of the knowledge that awaits you and is literally just > > sitting there waiting for you to find it. Don't waste life on unproven > > concepts reinforced with prophets and people that are proven to be > > wrong and/or nonexistent. > > I can never get rid of my feeling of stupidity for not yet seeming to > have seen this 'proof' that is supposed to be out there somewhere: a > proof that all manner of things (never exactly specified, it seems) do > not exist, and that belief in all manner of things is 'irrational'. > > To take a specific example of something in which I believe personally, > which I think of as being 'paranormal', yet which I do not think of as > being either 'supernatural' (breaking natural laws) or > 'irrational' (contradicting itself, or contradicting other well- > established beliefs which I hold): are you aware of some knock-down > logical or empirical argument that C. G. Jung's concept of > synchronicity is somehow a nonsensical idea, or a false theory? (It's > certainly very bewildering and disorientating.) > > (I don't even know how to define 'paranormal', but I am amused to find > this, in Wikipedia: "*Paranormal* is a general term that describes > unusual experiences that lack a scientific explanation, or phenomena > alleged to be outside of science's current ability to explain or > measure [...] but the scientific community [...] maintains that > scientific evidence does not support paranormal beliefs." No shit, > Sherlock!) > > (Sorry if this is too long, or incoherent, or typographically or > stylistically ill-formed - it's my first attempt to post to this > forum, and therefore a bit of an experiment in many respects.)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
